Bleszinski, who left Gears of War maker Epic games last October to take a break from game development, writes on his personal Tumblr that he thinks the time when most devices require a consistent Internet connection is coming sooner than later. "My gut is telling me that an always online future is probably coming," he wrote. "It’s coming fast, and possibly to the majority of the devices you enjoy."

While some gamers are still loudly complaining about the required server connections in PC games like SimCity and Diablo 3, Bleszinski notes that the former game is "selling briskly," and the latter has moved over 12 million units. "I would bet money that without the always online elements of Diablo 3 that it would have sold half of that," Bleszinski wrote, pointing an implicit finger at software piracy as the main reason for always-online requirements.

What about situations where people might want to play a game or console in some remote location without reliable high-speed Internet? Bleszinski replies that such situations are "the edge case... the week-long vacation to the cabin is only 30 hours of not playing a game or a device that’s built for much more. Technology doesn’t advance by worrying about the edge case." (Emphasis in original.)

He also pointed out that Microsoft's decision not to support dial-up connections on the original Xbox 360 was seen as a "bold move" in 2005, but that technology quickly caught up to the company's decision. "Well behaved people rarely make history. Deal with it," he summed up.

As far as Orth's departure from Microsoft, Bleszinski noted that we'll never know what really happened behind the scenes, but he still decried the Internet mob mentality that developed around Orth's statements. "If I departed from Epic every time I said something dumb I wouldn’t have made it the last 10 years there."

The problem is implementing it NOW, when the large percentage of consumers, let alone people who would acquire these devices, likely doesn't have the kind of network to support such a system.

Certainly throwing things out there to stress the infrastructure gives the ISPs reasons to want to expand or upgrade their network, but this isn't the kind of reason to do so. The widening adoption of services like Netflix is what's doing it.

An edge case is an extreme, not common, case that you STILL must account for. Broadband adoption is 60%ish in the US. So:

1. People without an always on internet connection are not an edge case.2. Even if they were, good engineering practice is to account for it if at all possible.

MS is out of their minds if they think this will go well.

I keep seeing the broadband adoption rate trotted out as an argument against always-online requirements for games and consoles, but there's a huge hole in it that proponents ignore. The more appropriate statistic would be the number of gamers/console owners who've adopted broadband. Nobody gives a rip about grandma in her trailer with dialup when it comes to always-online gaming.

No, the more appropriate statistic would be the number of gamers/console owners who have access to broadband.

Cliff sounds like a corporate shill to me, and his arguments aren't very solid. I don't think we're talking about technological advancements here, or the hindrance of such. Always Online is not a new inevitable technology that will make the world a better place. It's an existing technology that has ethical implications in its adoption. What the technology is up against is not the actual capability, but the will and desires of the very customers they are trying to implement this on.

I think the potential argument for the game devs might be that anyone who is buying a $300-$400 game console, and willing to buy $40-$50 games to go with it, will almost certainly have a good internet connection. Someone who lacks a good connection, probably cannot afford the console and the games, and is likely to be pirating games, so they are okay with losing those "customers".

That might be true in a lot of markets, but there still is a large percentage of the US where broadband ISN'T an option at all.

"I’d rather live in a world where someone can slip up, say something that the world doesn’t agree with, and not have the collective internet lynch mob up their ass."

This statement is logically flawed and has a double standard because the world is made of up of people including the internet lynch mob who should be just as free to say whatever the world does or doesn't agree with. What MS decided to do with the mob's (ie people's) reaction was entirely their decision and shouldn't stop Adam or the "mob" from saying whatever they want and dealing with the consequences.

In the wake of former Microsoft employee Adam Orth's controversial tweeted defense of the next Xbox's rumored always-online features (and his subsequent departure from Microsoft Studios), legendary game designer Cliff Bleszinski has come out publicly in support of Orth's comments, saying that those unhappy about an always-online future should "deal with it."

Considering every time US broadband comes up. Someone always talks about how it should be a utility. Well isn't part of the definition of a utility is the expectation of reliability? What good is a utility, if it's mostly down?

Always online is coming, whether you like it or not. Will it come with the next Xbox? I don't think so. Why would a corporation that wants to make money intentionally limit the amount of money they can make?

My prediction: MS will continue to not comment on these rumors, causing outrage to build. When they finally announce something, always-online will not be a requirement, causing them to look like good guys.

So we have arrived at this once more, eh? A stark division division in our society: those who can afford to - and are willing to - conform, and those who can't or won't. A "digital divide" that increasingly feels like it covers all aspects of technology.

Own a small business? Well then you are going to pay an increasingly disproportionate portion of your income in order to meet the minimum standards for technology required to compete with your larger competitors. Do you need a mobile phone in order to function in the modern world? Cellular data? The ever-present push to drive up average revenue per user is creating another divide. Want to to play video games? You either can - and will - conform or you are out in the cold.

Where that point of conformation is, of course, is carefully defined by a marketing message aimed at making only socially acceptable method of behaviour that which supports the profits of large corporations. We are creating a culture where it is increasingly socially unacceptable to pay more this year than the last for everything from connectivity to content; frittering away our incomes a few extra dollars here and a few extra there.

Those who complain are shouted down. "You're cheap" we cry! "You want everything for free!" (Often not the case, but demanding value for your dollar as a consumer is increasingly viewed in the same light as those who want to steal.) It has become amongst some nearly a religion: turn in your friends and neighbours! Vilify, bully and chastise them online! Hunt those who dare question the pricing structures and corporate policies of large enterprises.

After all, those enterprises have done research to determine what "the majority" want; especially handy after carefully shaping the message for a decade or two of indoctrination then following it up with carefully leading questions. "We can't worry about edge cases" is a hew and cry that is increasingly raised by defenders of this nascent religion. It is not only in video games you hear this: operating system design, notebook design, even the design of cars or public transportation.

Everyone occupies a niche at some point. Everyone is at some point on the edge of the curve. I ask you all: are we truly prepared to return to a society of "haves" and "have nots" where "haves" are defined by those who do precisely as they are told and under no circumstances question the decisions and proclamations of those in charge?

The man is right about one thing: innovation comes from those who refuse to do as they are told. I refuse to sedately consume. I will constantly question my "betters." I will demand more value for my dollar tomorrow than I had received yesterday. I will seek to drive the average revenue per user I pay every company down, not up. I will hold businesses to account. I will be fickle and use products and services that are the greatest value to me, not those which I am told I must use and enjoy simply because those selfsame interested parties tell me that the majority want things that way.

I will live way out here on the edge of the bell curve, being unruly, socially unacceptable and daring to question. I will innovate and demand innovation; innovation that benefits me. Where my interests and those of a corporation conflict, I choose my own interests. In the case of "always on" gaming, that means simply not buying it.

I'll support those who support "edge cases." I see no value inherent value in conforming to a manufactured mean.

An edge case is an extreme, not common, case that you STILL must account for. Broadband adoption is 60%ish in the US. So:

1. People without an always on internet connection are not an edge case.2. Even if they were, good engineering practice is to account for it if at all possible.

MS is out of their minds if they think this will go well.

I keep seeing the broadband adoption rate trotted out as an argument against always-online requirements for games and consoles, but there's a huge hole in it that proponents ignore. The more appropriate statistic would be the number of gamers/console owners who've adopted broadband. Nobody gives a rip about grandma in her trailer with dialup when it comes to always-online gaming.

While it's true that I'm an 'always online' household, that means my console in fact cannot rely on being 'always online' since it has to compete with 3 iPhones, two iPads, 4 PCs, a Wii U, a Palm Pre, and my phone service all riding on the same wire.

Meaning that at any given moment a YouTube channel, a phone call or FaceTime, three copies of Minecraft, email/notifications/alerts, and searching the web for a Wiki article can occur at the same time that a game is being played on the Wii U (and it isn't unlikely that the Wiki article + YouTube video is directly related to the game on the screen).

One thing to keep in mind is that these companies looking at always-online think in terms that are longer than the current, or event next product release cycle. You look 10-20 years out at what the market conditions will be like, and you position your product and service development accordingly. Despite all the moaning and complaining about lack of widespread broadband, it is entirely reasonable for companies to assume that always-on broadband will be available for the vast majority of its customer base. Therefore it shouldn't be a surprise that development is proceeding with this assumption, particularly given the business advantages an always-on model facilitates (moving from discrete game purchases to a subscription model is a better business model, it facilitates regular patches and updates to improve the gameplay experience and offer new features, and significantly raises the bar for pirates).

Those of you arguing against always-on are fighting the tide, in my opinion.

This whole thing isn't about stopping piracy, it's about converting gaming from a software sales model to a service sales model. Think World of Warcraft vs. Diablo 3. There aren't very many (if any) service-based console games, but there will be if you can guarantee the console will have a persistent connection.

This makes significantly more sense to me than the tired piracy argument. To my knowledge, not a single study has ever proven a causal link between piracy and reduced sales. However, you don't need a study to show that you can make more money by double dipping on new and used games through a subscription or Steam licensing model than you can exclusively selling new games.

If you can get paid for the same work of art 1.25 times by a customer rather than .75 times, as is the case when a used games market exists, then by all that is good and holy, of course you are going to use any argument you can think of to make that happen. If pointing to piracy makes you sounds like the morally just side, then so much the better.

I'm just happy that MS have made my decision about which console to buy for me. I don't see what's wrong with the drm on Xbox and ps3 currently - I don't see why they need more onerous drm.

Currently though if you aren't on your main console and you want to continue playing an xbla game it pops up a warning that you have to log in again within ten mins. A least that happened when I was playing Trails. That's already always on drm.

I feel like people who promote an "always-on" paradigm are missing a few key points:

1. Even people who have an always-on connection don't have 100% uptime

2. The loss of Internet connection can sometimes be more damaging than the loss of electrical power, for example. (Think of the numerous hours you might be devoting to progress in a video game, only to have it all lost when your Internet cuts out.)

3. Enforcing always-on robs the consumer of the sense of complete ownership. Owning a game that is playable offline has a certain tangibility that does not exist in an always-on scenario.

4. Games and other software can- and already do- operate and interact with online servers without the need to be constantly connected.

I can't believe D3 has sold that many copies. It has be all the gold farmers.

I wonder if that includes wow players like my girlfriend who only got D3 as a gift for purchasing a 1yr wow subscription because she otherwise would not have bought D3. And even though she got it for free and she was still disappointed by it... oh now she says she likes it, even though I haven't seen her playing it since she got torchlight2...

The option to be Always Online can be a feature that benefits a great deal of people. Mandatory Always Online is not a feature when the content has no need to be connected to the internet. Having to be online to play Planet Side makes sense. Having to be online to play Portal 2, that does not make sense. And deliberately building in online features into a single player game claiming they cannot be separated is the height of stupidity.

Just look at the lessons Blizzard learned with Diablo 3. There is a very big reason why the game won't feature mandatory online when released on the PS3.

In business, a 10% increase in sales over the previous release can be a huge success. Deliberately cutting out a sizeable part of the market for no viable reason? Deciding to ditch upwards of 30% of your customers? Thats economic suicide.

Activision released their own numbers of COD. They noted that something like 35% of the people who buy COD never played online. They buy the game purely for the single player experience. That is extremely telling.

One thing to keep in mind is that these companies looking at always-online think in terms that are longer than the current, or event next product release cycle. You look 10-20 years out at what the market conditions will be like, and you position your product and service development accordingly.

While true, this is not what is occurring here. Bandwidth costs money and the only way to cover that is to offer incentives; without it people don't use bandwidth.

This is quite clearly evident in the divide between high end cell phones and cheap cell phones and their use cases.

Quote:

Despite all the moaning and complaining about lack of widespread broadband, it is entirely reasonable for companies to assume that always-on broadband will be available for the vast majority of its customer base.

No, it isn't, not until you have much more bandwidth at current prices!

Quote:

Therefore it shouldn't be a surprise that development is proceeding with this assumption, particularly given the business advantages an always-on model facilitates (moving from discrete game purchases to a subscription model is a better business model, it facilitates regular patches and updates to improve the gameplay experience and offer new features, and significantly raises the bar for pirates).

Those of you arguing against always-on are fighting the tide, in my opinion.

I'm not arguing against always-on, I'm saying it won't happen for another 5 years.

If Microsoft wants to do this then they need to offer an incentive such as free/subsidized broadband with purchase of console (which is the opposite of how cell phones work; they give away/subsidize cell phones to entice you to purchase the expensive broadband!) The point being that one cost needs to pay for the other.

Here you are arguing that someone needs to pay $400 for the console AND $50/m for the bandwidth.

Always online is coming for sure, is inevitable, but it doesn't in fact require that games 'phone home' regularly during gameplay at all.

An edge case is an extreme, not common, case that you STILL must account for. Broadband adoption is 60%ish in the US. So:

1. People without an always on internet connection are not an edge case.2. Even if they were, good engineering practice is to account for it if at all possible.

MS is out of their minds if they think this will go well.

I keep seeing the broadband adoption rate trotted out as an argument against always-online requirements for games and consoles, but there's a huge hole in it that proponents ignore. The more appropriate statistic would be the number of gamers/console owners who've adopted broadband. Nobody gives a rip about grandma in her trailer with dialup when it comes to always-online gaming.

While it's true that I'm an 'always online' household, that means my console in fact cannot rely on being 'always online' since it has to compete with 3 iPhones, two iPads, 4 PCs, a Wii U, a Palm Pre, and my phone service all riding on the same wire.

Meaning that at any given moment a YouTube channel, a phone call or FaceTime, three copies of Minecraft, email/notifications/alerts, and searching the web for a Wiki article can occur at the same time that a game is being played on the Wii U (and it isn't unlikely that the Wiki article + YouTube video is directly related to the game on the screen).

If your pipe can't handle all those connections, it's time to get a bigger pipe. I don't see why a typical broadband connection wouldn't be able to handle what you describe.

I'm not going to pay for a $400 console that requires a $50/m internet connection when I can buy a $350 console that is okay on a $25/m internet connection. At some point fiscal constraints kick in.

I think there's a large case to be made for games and consoles with online content. It can add a lot, and even gamers with less than perfect internet will probably hook up to the internet.

And it's not "I want to take my console to a remote cabin" that's the problem. The problem is that even in places with decent broadband, it hiccups and stops working from time to time. That's reality. We are very, very far from 100% reliable broadband internet everywhere even in the US and Europe

The fundamental sticking point is that devs need to design hardware and software to fail gracefully when there's no internet. My phone does. My tablet does. My computer does. My software does. What makes your console or game so special? Or is it just laziness?

An edge case is an extreme, not common, case that you STILL must account for. Broadband adoption is 60%ish in the US. So:

1. People without an always on internet connection are not an edge case.2. Even if they were, good engineering practice is to account for it if at all possible.

MS is out of their minds if they think this will go well.

Of the 40% that doesn't have a broadband connection and can afford the new xbox is the edge case. Which I imagine is a very small fraction of that 40%.

You've missed it. It's not that 40% can't afford a broadband connection, it's that they can't get a broadband connection even if they wanted it -- like me.

I didn't miss it, you are the edge case, you are of that small fraction that doesn't have broadband but can afford the new xbox. I spoke specifically to that point as being the edge case. The other's who have access to broadband and can't afford more than likely can not afford the console, thus they are not the edge case.

All of those calls to "deal with it" are just ridiculous. I have two ways of dealing with a console that requires constant connection: buy the damn thing or not. And, as of now, I think the model has more inconveniences than advantages; therefore I will not buy it. If they have to eat their 720s with fries, they are the ones who will have to "deal with it". Customers and their money have the last word at everything.

I do agree with the fact that Orth shouldn't have resigned or get fired just for being a bit of a jerk on Twitter. It reminds me of rhe PyCon incident. Pure overreaction.

An edge case is an extreme, not common, case that you STILL must account for. Broadband adoption is 60%ish in the US. So:

1. People without an always on internet connection are not an edge case.2. Even if they were, good engineering practice is to account for it if at all possible.

MS is out of their minds if they think this will go well.

I keep seeing the broadband adoption rate trotted out as an argument against always-online requirements for games and consoles, but there's a huge hole in it that proponents ignore. The more appropriate statistic would be the number of gamers/console owners who've adopted broadband. Nobody gives a rip about grandma in her trailer with dialup when it comes to always-online gaming.

Per Microsoft, 27% of existing 360 users do not have a broadband connection.

I'm always confused by the piracy argument from gaming companies. Has there ever been even one study to prove that piracy substantially reduces the number of gaming purchases? Obviously, there are case studies that show that people love to pirate, but does making piracy on a game impossible result in more sales or does it simply result in people who love to pirate looking into other games?

Not to mention the evidence is not on their side.

Name one company, in either Hollywood or in the gaming business, that has gone bankrupt over "piracy". Piracy is irrelevant. If you make a good game, people will buy it. Just ask the intelligent people at Bethesda who only make single player games....how many copies did Skyrim sell? So much for "facts" about piracy. Or better yet, how about we see the "evidence" that Call of Duty games being the "most pirated" games around.....how much money did they lose? Last time I checked, their last game sold nearly a BILLION dollars worth. Yeah...piracy hurts them doesn't it?

Piracy is a bullshit argument that anyone with an IQ above 80 can understand. When I start seeing companies go bankrupt and people getting laid off because of "piracy" with actual facts to back up their claims, then I will care.

Or they could, you know, actually make good games that people want to play instead of listening to some marketing subhuman who has no right making games in the first place. Hi SimCity........

I feel like people who promote an "always-on" paradigm are missing a few key points:

1. Even people who have an always-on connection don't have 100% uptime

2. The loss of Internet connection can sometimes be more damaging than the loss of electrical power, for example. (Think of the numerous hours you might be devoting to progress in a video game, only to have it all lost when your Internet cuts out.)

3. Enforcing always-on robs the consumer of the sense of complete ownership. Owning a game that is playable offline has a certain tangibility that does not exist in an always-on scenario.

4. Games and other software can- and already do- operate and interact with online servers without the need to be constantly connected.

I'd love to hear Orth's or Bleszinski's replies to these points.

There's an assumption in your comment that is made in many comments, and that's the idea that even a brief interruption of a connection would cause the system to "go to dashboard", or lose hours of gameplay. Do you think these companies are so stupid as to not address the potential faults of an always-online requirement? I play SimCity, and if my connection is interrupted, the game doesn't crash to desktop or anything, and I am certain these companies would structure the always-on in similar ways, where it won't be devastating to your experience.

One thing to keep in mind is that these companies looking at always-online think in terms that are longer than the current, or event next product release cycle. You look 10-20 years out at what the market conditions will be like, and you position your product and service development accordingly.

I'm against always online because I look 10-20 years out. I want to play a game in 10 years on the 720, which is no longer supported. The servers have been taken down, console and all the games I bought are dead. This is not a hypothetical to me. I'm currently playing a 12 year old game, and I have ones much older than that installed.

The fact that Microsoft hasn't officially denied this rumor means that they are at least trying to push it through.

Getting it shot down isn't enough. MS is trying throw 40% of its potential market under the bus, probably to satisfy DRM fetishist developers. When a company is so contemptuous of its customers, it deserves to fail.

An edge case is an extreme, not common, case that you STILL must account for. Broadband adoption is 60%ish in the US. So:

You say 'must' but I don't think that word means what you think it means.

A manufacturer/producer 'must' do nothing. They 'may' choose to address an edge case. Or not.

Kani wrote:

1. People without an always on internet connection are not an edge case.

They may well be an edge case in *the target demographic for your product*.

Ex: Apple sells iPhones as primarily high-end, with older models as mid-range. They are not particularly interested in this point in selling low-end. "People who can't afford an iPhone" isn't an edge case. Apple still doesn't care, they're not the target at this time.

Kani wrote:

2. Even if they were, good engineering practice is to account for it if at all possible.

Not even remotely. Good engineering practice is exactly to build the best product according to your product targets and specifications.

[disclaimer: I work for Microsoft @ Bing. I do not know anything about the nextbox. All opinions my own]

Small percentage of gamers are active duty military. We can debate about percentage without reliably internet, including going forward. Small percentage are active in secondary gaming market. Small percentage aren't in supported regions of the globe. Small percentage are concerned about still being able to play their games in 10 years. Small percentage object on principal. Small percentage are going to compare your offering to indie pc gaming market. Small percentage will be convinced not to buy by the other small percentages.

The one thing all these whiz-kid tech gurus fail to grasp is that their customers are not all whiz-kid tech gurus. My career revolves around keeping those non-techie users online and its not easy. I see everything from neighbors "borrowing" unsecured wifi for bittorrent. Shoddy premise wiring. Spam bot infested PC's, and 100's of more scenarios. It all adds up to very unreliable network connections for your average non-techie users.

I can't wait to see how MSFT and others pursuing the always-on approach will respond to these users.

One thing to keep in mind is that these companies looking at always-online think in terms that are longer than the current, or event next product release cycle. You look 10-20 years out at what the market conditions will be like, and you position your product and service development accordingly.

I'm against always online because I look 10-20 years out. I want to play a game in 10 years on the 720, which is no longer supported. The servers have been taken down, console and all the games I bought are dead. This is not a hypothetical to me. I'm currently playing a 12 year old game, and I have ones much older than that installed.

Way too many assumptions in your comment about what will actually happen in an always-online world. I think you're improperly mixing today's paradigm with that of tomorrow. Who's to say the 720 game in 10 years won't be supported/servers won't exist? Who's to say all of your games will be dead?

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.